James DiEugenio

BTW, is Mr Litwin around anymore? Or does he only post at the McRae menagerie?

Dan did a limited hangout with Garrison. He did know Oswald since he had seen him in Banister's office. But the Garrison inquiry was too hot at the time. BTW, Delphine Roberts did the same thing. She did a limited hangout with Garrison. It was not until the HSCA when Bob Buras tracked her down that she was willing to talk.

Micah: In Lisa's book, she has new evidence of that whole issue which puts it to bed. In my intro, that is the evidence she called me up about one night at seven and said I had to drive right up there to that library immediately. Because she was the first one who had seen it and she feared it would be gone the next day and she needed a witness.

I forgot something about the Russia angle. Condolezza Rice was actually part of the Soviet division under Bush 1. Wow, is that something? And she missed on who Gorbachev was that badly. Really, sometimes when you read this stuff that so called experts say or write, its scary. Like Foster Dulles saying Dien Bien Phu was a blessing since the USA could now go in without a taint of colonialism. Someone who said that should have been committed. Instead he was running the State Department. But this is the angle from which Litwin is coming from. The whole neocon theology that has made such a mess out of American foreign policy and more or less buried Kennedy's attempt at detente with Cuba and Moscow, and his moderate approach to the Middle East.

Subtlety is not Kirk's forte.

WN: Were you quoting the last line of Some Like it Hot? I agree with that verdict on Litwin. And that is what makes his book utterly worthless. Its clear he does not give a damn about JFK. BTW, I should have added: that whole thing with Team B going in to inflate the Russian threat with the help of Director Bush, that was really the beginning of the Neocon movement. If you recall, this was under Ford, and by 1975-76, Rumsfeld and Cheney had become quite powerful there. The idea they had was to undercut Kissinger, who was still advocating detente.

I don't think that is it. Although he does use that whole MItrokhin stuff about Permindex being a KGB disinfo story through Paesa Sera. What a crock of crap that is. I mean with the material out of the Bloomfield archives through Maurice Phillips, and the new Metta book. Permindex was anything but a disinfo story. http://somesecretsforyou.blogspot.com/ But I do think there is a far right political faction in North America that will tolerate no criticism of Israel, I mean none. And these people are now part of the GOP really. I mean can you imagine Boehner allowing Benjy N to speak to the House in defiance of the White House? But its also a part of the whole hard right Daniel and Richard Pipes school that will not tolerate any kind of conspiracy thinking or even alternative to MSM history. RIchard Pipes rose to a high position in the Reagan administration after being part of the Team B network in the late seventies with Nitze and CIA Director George HW Bush. The whole point of that was to actually move to the right of the CIA on the Russian threat. With Bush's help they did and then when Reagan won, Pipes became a heavy hitter on foreign policy, in fact he was on the NSC. Pipes, like all these other experts e.g. Condolezza Rice, were completely wrong about Gorbachev. In fact, Nixon and Kissinger actually told Reagan's advisors not to let Reagan in the same room alone with Gorby. And this helped blow the great offer of the Iceland agreement. Like many of these guys, Pipes came out of the Henry Jackson entourage e.g. Richard Perle. The kind of anti communist Democrats that JFK did not like. But the combination of the hardcore GOP with the Jackson Democrats managed to marginalize scholars like Steve Cohen, who was correct about Gorbachev. In my view, these people had an agenda that was really discernible. They either wanted a completely wrecked USSR, or a return to the Cold War. Because of their stupidity, they got both. When Gorbachev could not bring anything of substance home, even though he made so many great proposals, he lost too much capital. This caused the attempted coup and the rise of the drunken buffoon Yeltsin--the worst thing to happen to Russia since the disastrous reign of the last of the Romanovs. And we did everything we could to keep him in power, like rigging Russian elections. Which is OK with these guys from Russiagate. Then when the Russian people had enough of starvation, economic ruin and the rise of a thieving billionaire class, all made possible by Yeltsin, that led to Putin who at least gave then back some national self respect. To me there is nothing worse than a man like Richard Pipes who gives the far right an intellectual veneer for its engine of folly and ruin. His son Daniel Pipes is a backer of Litwin. In fact, they have a mutual admiration kinship.

What he is doing over there points out the difference between this forum and McRae's and why I would never post there. He is saying that Shaw was not Bertrand and there is no evidence he was. And no one calls him out with specifics. This proves what I wrote in my review of his excerpted chapter on Garrison. Either Litwin did utterly no research in the new files, or he is simply l-y-i-n-g. There is one other alternative. He has now become such an O'Reilly triple distilled culture warrior that the truth does not matter to him: there is an enshrined objective which includes deceiving the public. To point out how utterly false and deluded Litwin is, all one has to do is look at Bill Davy's fine book on Garrison, Let Justice Be Done. That book was based on what Litwin's book is bereft of: ARRB declassified docs. Davy shows that the FBI, and the Justice Department, through a variety of sources, knew that Shaw was Bertrand back in 1963-64. (p. 193) And in Cartha DeLoach's declassified memo, he writes that several parties had given the Bureau information about Shaw relating to the JFK case back in December of 1963! (p. 192) At the Shaw trial Regis Kennedy admitted on the stand, under oath, that before he talked to Dean Andrews, he was investigating the JFK case. He then said he was looking for Bertand in relation to that case. (p. 194) Now, if that is not enough for you, let us go to the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. Ed Guthman of the Justice Department knew that Shaw was Bertrand. And finally, we have it from the horse's mouth. Andrews admitted such was the case to Weisberg, on the condition he would not tell anyone. (Jim DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 388) And I should add, these are only the witnesses and evidence outside of Garrison's files, and also excluding the witnesses Joan Mellen found in the French Quarter who would not talk to Garrison because of his B girl drinking raids. (The fruity Litwin actually wrote that these were gay bar raids. I told him this could not be true since the guys were buying drinks for girls. Maybe I should draw him a picture to illustrate the difference?) But this is how utterly worthless his book is. It is not a book, it is a political tract. And it shows just what the problem is with the JFK case. Due to CBS and NBC way back in 1967, it has become a political football field, not a homicide case.

How hard up is Litwin? First, he hangs out now at McRae's menagerie. You know, where people go who have been thrown out of here. He gets a good review from Max Holland. (Yawn) And he thinks that is some kind of achievement! And he brags about it over there. Now, has he acknowledged any of the errors I pointed out in my two reviews of his worthless book? Nope. He acknowledges the reviews, but not the mistakes i elucidated. Smart guy. BTW, this is the guy who uses Tom Canning to support the Single Bullet Fantasy. Not acknowledging that Pat Speer demolished him. Yep him and Daneil Pipes are birds of a feather. Facts do not matter. Politics does.

BN: Yeah! Tired of Trump's preversions... That's one Bat Guano for a Ripper. LOL ROTF

Nice work, interesting connections.

Let us put it this way. I think that its pretty obvious that Moldea is Cesar's agent/handler. Does anyone disagree?

No, not yet.

Kind of interesting isn't it? Nice observation Tony.

Go through this review, and as you do, count up the corroborating witnesses Nagell has, all the way to the end. Maybe his sister and her husband were liars also? https://kennedysandking.com/content/russell-dick-on-the-trail-of-the-jfk-assassins-richard-case-nagell-the-most-important-witness-part-2

Micah, I am really surprised that you billed this as you did. I mean, have you not done any study of Nagell for yourself at all? I am also really disappointed in Chuck Ochelli. This is nothing less than a hatchet job. The kind of thing that Dave Reitzes or Fred Litwin or Paul Hoch or McAdams would do. Nagell has so many corroborating witnesses--BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION--that its a little ridiculous to blame this on his marital problems. But Carmine leaves them all out. Why? Is the arresting policeman, Bundren, a xxxx also? He told Russell that Nagell predicted the assassination before it happened to him. (p. 3) Russell describes the shooting incident in his second edition, pp 105-08. The ID has Oswald's picture on it and its in the book.

The Ruskies started the Paradise fire! That one reminds me of General Ripper: "Mandrake, we cannot allow the communist conspiracy to contaminate our precious bodily fluids."

Paul, that is not really accurate as I noted on another thread. I had what was left of Garrison's files since Lyon Garrison let me copy them in 1994. A lot of this I recognize from then but there is some stuff here that I do not recall. Therefore, I suspect that Garrison gave these to John at an earlier date, perhaps in the seventies, than when I got access to them. This really makes me sad though. As interesting as this material is--I mean just look at what Bill Davy did with it--can you imagine what would have been there if the files had been allowed to stand intact? I have often made the observation that between what was stolen from the DA, what was lost, and what Harry Connick incinerated, I would wager that what we have now is maybe 40 per cent of the total. Less than half.

I think Weisberg found out about the question to Marina about " Farry" also. Isn't that interesting. The FBI knew about Ferrie on the 24th? One neat thing about what John is doing is this: he is showing that the idea that Garrison had little or nothing, or that he was a crackpot investigator, is baloney. There is a lot of really interesting information in these files, and Garrison's comments are pretty much spot on. So the smears that the likes of Paul Hoch, Peter Scott, Tony Summers, David Lifton and Tink Thompson have tried to characterize the DA with, these were simply not sound. What made it worse is that they never even referred to this raw data when attacking him. I should add, although much of this material, at first glance, is familiar to me since Lyon Garrison let me copy his late father's extant files--some of it is not. Therefore I suspect that John got these from Garrison at an earlier date than I got them from his son.

"The future of our country and of Western Civilization is at stake." Not even Bill Buckley could have outdone that one.

How did the reporters know about it?

I made a mistake. Mueller has been in office for 20 months, its over a year and a half. I went back and compared this with Watergate. Cox was installed in May of 1973. Within one year, the special prosecutor was convicting people in the White House like Chapin. He was indicting people like Mitchell, Haldeman, Colson etc. In August of 1974, less than a year and a half after the special prosecutor was installed, Nixon resigned, to avoid being impeached. Again, maybe Mueller is on to something bigger than anyone expects. I would like to think that. Hopefully such is the case. I grant him the benefit of the doubt.

I am having a hard time downloading that at Scribd. I don't want to print it but just view it in page by page form.

Coincidence department: right before Lisa's book came out, John Meier got extremely sick to the point he had to be hospitalized.

Is Tommy Graves back? I would have thought no one could misconstrue my posts as much as that guy, but Kirk is giving him a run for his money. When did I ever say I advocated anything to do with Stockman's politics or economics? What I said was that I did not like them but I did like his smarts and his candidness. I mean who in the WH was denouncing the Laffer Curve back in 1982? As far as econ goes, which I used to teach, I have always been in the Keynes/Stiglitz camp. Nice to know that Kirk knows just what the limits of Jeff Carter's knowledge are. Guess Jeff should not post anymore since he is north of the border. Talk about American exceptionalism. But actually what is there to like about a Secretary of State who did what HRC did in Haiti, and especially Libya. She was all for the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. And she did advocate sending the Great White Fleet to scare China. HRC was pretty much a neocon. As per an investigation, I mean what the heck do you call what Mueller has been doing for the last year and a half? Or maybe you back the urination stories in the Steele Dossier that HRC paid for? And wow, OMG to bring in the Simpson trial? That is the kind of trick Tommy G would use. I agree with your last sentence. PS Everyone did hear that Trump Jr did not call his pop before the Trump Tower meeting right?